They aren't concerned about the issues, just the most views. "All of us in commercial television are confronted by a difficult choice that commercialism imposes. Do we deliberately aim for the lowest common denominator, thereby assuring ourselves of the largest possible audience but producing nothing but cotton candy for the mind, or do we tackle the difficult subjects as creatively as we can, knowing that we may lose much of the mass audience?" (source F) TV producers know that their audience isn't going to watch a boring debate, so they take out the important issues to get the highest rating. This is just another example of how TV has had a negative impact on Presidential elections.
When significant things happen or the nation is on alert, we as Americans rely and trust what news reporters, radio stations, and newspaper journalists have to say. However, current media nowadays tend to report with more biased opinions and less fact. Often times, we would hear about celebrities such as their engagements, scandals, DUI cases in which all are sold to catch the media’s attention. As a society, we seem to always focus our attention to things that are less important to our lives, instead of being more cautious and aware of news that can affect our daily lives. The televised newscast selected to compare is CNN.
One of the most controversial conflicts in our Nations history is definitely the Vietnam War. Today there is a lot of skepticism with America’s involvement in the War and I believe the biggest thing that gave people so much skepticism is the media’s portrayal of the War. The mainstream news stations of the time seemed to care more about entertainment, trying to get the most interesting story in order to keep their ratings high and keep people on the edge of their seat. The Documentary we watched in class gave a good look at how the media was more into story telling and less into giving people the facts that they deserve. I think that the film did a really good job at exposing the media for it’s horrible performance during the Vietnam War.
Both companies are not real people so they shouldn’t have the right to say why there company is better that’s ridiculous. Without people knowing who is the better TV provider or better candidate all depends on what kind of advertisement that company puts out. So all the ads you see on TV will either make fun of the company or say how bad they are on what they produce or they will do. Big ways corporations get their ads out are on social media nowadays. With Facebook the top social media website you know companies are going to get their ads on there.
Not all press is good and totally honest. Sometimes stories, even the positive ones, are a little stretched from the truth. Instead of getting the facts of a story we could be given opinions from the writer. Or we could even be given totally false information just because they wanted to make news. For example, the tabloids put out crazy stories of made up things just to get people interested enough to buy their paper.
(289~291) I agree with Johnson’s claim of, Sleeper Curve makes the viewers improve so they Liu 2 can and will want to watch more TV shows. However, watching TV have more factors that make you more stupid than make you smarter. This skill ends up letting people watch more and more TVs, which already is a bad thing, and they become more stupid. First of all, TV shows’ content also is a great factor of being smart which Johnson never talks about. In “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” when he talked about the show 24, he ignored the content of the show like the torture scenes, and go straight to the Sleeper Curve.
According to Michael Moore’s documentary, I assume that media can’t be trustworthy unless people explore for the accurate news and find out who is behind those news and TV shows. Some media images could be fabricated to edited or transmitted from the wrong place. Furthermore the problem with some government’s TVs that they use lots of intimidation in their news, and most people believe it and they build their thoughts on what they hear in the news without searching for the true information. For example, there is an American TV show called “Cops”, it is a documentary of reality shows the way how cops search for criminals and how they chase them. They usually show that that the criminals are black people and the white cops are chasing them.
Says Pearing, in the text book “introduction to crime and criminology 3”. The media likes to focus on bigger crimes for bigger publicity, such as sex crimes, assault rape. Excluding the little crimes, such as theft, so little as jay walking. Filling our news papers, and web feeds with the same article twice, even if the evidence in it, is half or completely false, if it attracts readers it is to be printed. We don’t focus on the real facts or even where it begin, nor does the media like to go all out for little crimes like, abandonment of a child etc.
Student Professor Someone English , Section # 7 February 2014 Impartial American News In our day and age, most mainstream news organizations are viewed as bias entities whom only publish news articles that advance their own agendas. American distrust in the media has steadily been on the rise since the mid-eighties. Still, Robert J Samuelson feels that those in the news business are impartial truth seekers. Samuelsons article “Picking Sides for the News” argues that most media outlets do not intentionally produce bias stories. Rather, they produce news that caters to their customers tastes.
Synthesis Essay The impact of the television on the people of this country has greatly increased throughout the years. However, the influences portrayed from the televisions are not always for the better. The media tries its best to send information to the people, but on the topic of presidential elections, there is always controversy. It seems to appear that the television has had “unsuspected” help to make the presidential elections focused more on which candidate is more impressive on screen, then who is presenting the finest ideas. The president’s image is important in a campaign, but it should not be the main factor to which they deserve to be sworn into office.